A place where ideas, not people, are under assault.

Menu

Another casuality in the War on Women

How would you respond if you were the victim of an egregious injustice? An injustice that wreaked destruction in every aspect of your life and the lives of your precious children? You were the casualty of a wrecking ball that plunged you into financial ruin, upended your entire life, and dragged your innocent children into an emotional horror show?

And further still?

The ruin of your everything is CELEBRATED!

That’s right.

A celebration that thrusts your children into an unwanted spotlight. They are used, against your will, as poster children for the oh-so-progressive narrative carefully sculpted by the liberal media. Your tragedy is heralded as a milestone in the fight for human rights.

Well, rights for the popular crowd at least. You and your children’s rights are not important to the narrative.

You just might be tempted to attack and destroy. You’ve been harmed, and the natural human tendency is to do what has been done to you. But, because you are a woman of character and deep faith, destroying others does not factor into your list of options.

But you do not go home in quiet defeat either. You refuse to pay homage to the Politically Correct police and you will not cower or bend to the bullying of a well-funded media or pop-culture elites; those who will tell you that there are only rainbows and unicorns at the end of the redefinition of marriage. Nope.

Although the betrayal is near unbearable, it is your duty as a mother to protect the father/child relationship as much as possible and it is your Christian duty to not demonize the man to whom you once committed your life, nor his new partner.

Because your convictions are solid, you do not remain silent but choose to tell your story in a way that doesn’t slander those who have wronged you. You speak the facts plainly and do not shy away from the ugly details. But you make sure to keep your children and ex-husband’s information private. You are honest about how you and your children have been affected, while simultaneously abiding by the court’s decree and as you encourage your children to have a strong relationship with their father.

That’s a fine line to walk, no?

But that is exactly the line my quiet, unassuming friend stepped onto this week. She bravely laid herself bare and shared the truth of how redefining marriage has personally affected her and her children. The recap: Her husband left her for his lover. The judge, in an effort to set a precedent and likely, under the premise that “the gay spouse is the victim” in the marriage, ruled disproportionately in favor of her ex-husband. The fall out for her and her children has been severe. When I say severe, please read: so painful she was not willing to share the depths of their suffering publicly.

Her story has been liked and shared at a surprising rate. My guess as to why? It is the Real Deal and the truth has a ring to it. It is not another dose of gay marriage happy talk that makes its way into our sitcoms and front-page articles. She has, God forbid, dared to state the facts. She exposed herself and courageously shared a story that challenges the photo-shopped depictions of shiny happy same-sex headed households.

What comes next has become all too predictable. So predictable you should just stop reading and head to Facebook for some neat kitty pictures and propaganda memes. But I am here to the end because my friend’s story deserves to be told.

Her truth telling has been too much for some in the left. As far as they are concerned she is not supposed to exist; this heartbreaking story shouldn’t exist. The extreme gay marriage lobby has worked so hard to construct a perfect picture of gay marriage and gay parenting that the revelation of the kind of brokenness on which many same-sex headed households are founded is threatening. That kind of truth is ugly and does not sell well with the cocktails-at-five crowd.

So, predictably, my friend is under assault. According to the PC police, swift and severe punishment is due. They have the worst kind of bigot on their hands. A pesky, daring one whose life and story threatens to open the eyes of a public who has been painstakingly groomed.

They are up to the really nasty maneuvers this time. They are digging deeply to find what little identifying information they can, and are exploiting it. They have found her ex and made sure he knows of the evil she dares speak. They have contacted her employer to make sure they know they have a bigot and “gay-basher” working for them. In other words? They seek to completely ruin what she has slowly rebuilt since the wrecking ball first hit.

At this point what would you do, dear reader? I would be tempted to run. Or fret. Or attack. Or vomit. Or a combination of all of those.

But my convicted, Jesus following, faithful friend has chosen to stand firm. She is ever aware of her own failings and shortcomings, and asking that God will refine her through this process. She is petitioning God to bless those who persecute her. She is on her knees for her ex-husband and his partner. She is stalwart in assuring that every word she speaks about them and with them is truthful and gracious. And she will continue to be a rock for her children, come what may.

I am honored to stand shoulder to shoulder with this woman.

I don’t know how else I can be of service to her other than to ask that you pray on her behalf.

What a brave woman who speaks from the heart. That kind of courage and honesty is so needed in the world today. I’ll keep her in my prayers.

The attack on traditional marriage is an issue close to my heart. I’m rather blessed and don’t face the challenges she has, but even I have felt the impact of these changes on my marriage, on the kids, the family unit. Women need to come together, come along side each other on this issue, because marriage was actually designed to protect us and to shelter children.

Stories like this are heartbreaking. God be with your friend and give her courage daily to keep breaking the silence. He gives beauty for ashes. There is no doubt that in the end the self loving party will be the greatest loser. May God save his soul. I will pray for her children.
God bless you as well!. ☺

My worst nightmare….that my husband turns into someone else I don’t recognize; not only lead astray by them but insistent on leading my children down the same self-destroying path. I literally DO have nightmares about it. My prayers are with your friend, Katy, and let me stand with you in giving her whatever support I can. Let me know if there is anything I can do.

A couple of things here. This kind of situation isn’t limited to marriage break up solely due to one person realising they’re gay. So many break ups are ugly and full of recriminations. Also it is impossible to understand what’s going on truly without hearing the other side of the story. This woman is understandably hurt and bitter but also clearly comes preloaded with disgust for gay relationships. We all know that even in the most common split, one side of any break up story never tells it all.

I’m afraid you don’t get it.
Your friend’s (ex-)husband is gay. Gay as “homosexual”, whose innate nature makes him romantically and sexually attracted to men, not women. Just like Jonathan and David from 1 Samuel.
Had he been not indoctrinated from young age to hide his true nature and to pretend to be straight, he would have never deceived himself and his bride/wife, and would never have married her. The woman would have married another, straight man, instead, and lived happily ever after.

So, ironically, it’s actually lack of marriage equality in the past, that caused this unfortunate situation. That caused gay people to hide and deny their true nature (including from themselves) and marry those unfortunate women. And then have sex other with men on the side, just like Senator Larry Craig did.

If your friend’s ex-husband is bisexual, then it’s just a simple case of adultery. Straight men leave their wives for lovers. Bi-men leave their wives for lovers. It doesn’t have anything to do with “marriage redefinition”.

Oh, and about marriage redefinition. It’s been redefined quite a few times, including in the past century.
Bans on interracial marriage invalidated. Married women can hold credit in their own name. No-fault divorce allowed. The man is not the sole legal face of the married couple anymore. Etc.

I’ve been around enough LGBT people to reject that everyone is completely pre-programed toward only one gender or the other. One of the benefits of having the long view beginning with my childhood observations and seeing where many of those women has landed has taught that for many, sexuality is fluid. I’ve known many who have bounced between heterosexual and then homosexual relationships and then back again- at any one of those points believing that that was the “only” way their attractions would allow. And of course, there are some who throughout their life are attracted solely to the same sex. But that is not everyone. This is discussed more in-depth in this post: https://askthebigot.com/2012/12/05/sexual-orientation/

Of course through our hyper-sexualized culture, it’s unthinkable that there could be friendship between men that is strong, binding, and completely platonic. Which, of course, was the case between David and Jonathan.

Oh, that was very witty. Too bad there was no valid counter-argument. I, personally, was not aware of any 15 year old GLAAD play books. Of any GLAAD playbooks, actually.
Don’t see any bedpan around me, though.

Also, list time I read the Commandments it says: “You should not bear false witness”. That’s what Janna Darnelle Finkbeiner Anderson seems to do when she makes it look like the ex-husband got full custody (and possibly lying about the whole lot of ridiculous things she’s saying about their “lifestyle”). They split custody. I guess she’s been arguing in the divorce court that as a gay, he doesn’t deserve any custody, but the judge ruled otherwise. She’s unhappy the children are happy and that they haven’t disowned him. But it’s more about her, than about him.
You can find the ex-husband’s side of the story in comments on the blogs about this story. Google will help.

You don’t get to define reality by conjecturing. No, she never stated that he was awarded custody. And what you are saying about her children and the proceedings are in error. You are projecting regarding her motivations and if you saw what was taking place on the ground that would be clear. But, as usual, the tactic of choice is to attack the one with whom you disagree. Not her position, the *person.* Yes, there are two sides of the story. But there is nothing fallacious in what she has chosen to write. If you have an objection to the article, it should be the content, not the fact that it was brought into light.

I’m sorry to have offended you. Didn’t mean that. Sometimes having gay people in family affects opinions of even most conservative people. For example, former Vice President Cheney, bless his little dead heart, is OK with same sex marriage.

Here by way of http://mustardseedbudget.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/love-for-gays/ , his blog I follow. I feel for your friends heart that has been broken. I am a former/ not former lesbian, I am in solitude, I became this way through the life I choose not to live. Breakup. The relationships I have had ended not in love. In love a relationship does not end. In the process I found the greatest love I could ever have, God. God does not leave any of us. We leave him, in our hatred of others. I grew up in a family broken, not by gay relations, but by love not being present in the relationship between my mother and her spouses. Love can be found in any relationship providing 2 hearts remain there. It only takes one to leave. It takes 2 to love.

I recently read that article about your friend before I saw you linked it on here. As a fellow sister in Christ, I pray that God gives her strength during this difficult time for her, what with her story going public and all manner of people attacking her so viciously. I commend her for her bravery and I pray that even while so many people are saying and doing evil things against her that she continues to see Christ as all-sufficient.

Something that jumps out about this issue is the complete selfishness of it all. Here’s a woman who has been violated, betrayed, let down, and that’s painful. Rather than lifting her up, providing her some comfort, she’s attacked by some for not embracing a larger political agenda and celebrating her ex husband’s new found identity.

When it comes to the so called “war on women,” this is like the ultimate act of sexism, of oppression. Her needs are irrelevant, she’s supposed to set her feelings aside for the good of this man, to deny her own needs, the needs of her children, and basically lay down like a doormat. It’s interesting to me that those who are often so disapproving of women submitting to any kind of biblical gender roles, often turn around and demand that women do exactly that, submit themselves completely to the dominant political ideology of the day.

What I see in this case is just another divorce, where one side (justly or not) feels slighted and airs their grievances. The judge in the family court decided to give the primary custody to the party they saw as more able to support and raise the children. To claim that the woman should have given the primary custody just because she’s a woman would have been sexist.

Too bad she’s claiming that the problem is with gay marriage. It’s not. The problem is that they should not have been married in the first place, The society should not pressure gay people to pretend to be straight and marry the opposite sex. It ends bad.

I really don’t care what “the problem is,” what the socio-political implications are, this is a woman who was violated, betrayed, and is in pain. The fact that her feelings, pain, discomfort, are supposed to be completely sacrificed for the alleged common good of a political agenda is extremely sexist and dehumanizing.

Also extremely sexist is this idea that he should rather selfishly pursue his own identity, his own life, setting aside nothing, making no sacrifice for his family, accepting no personal responsibility for his own decisions. After all, “society” must have pressured him into heterosexual marriage, so even that is not his responsibility.

She on the other hand is not supposed to have any expectations, any dreams, nor has society in any way victimized her. Instead she is perceived as some sort of oppressor who committed the ultimate crime of trying to love and trust somebody and build a life with them.

So how is this case different from millions of other divorces, where the ex-husband got primary custody and then married another woman? Are ex-wives in those cases unjustly violated/betrayed? Should people stay in loveless marriages?

When people stay in loveless marriages, where the spouses don’t care about each other, and maybe even hate each other, children suffer more than if the parents were divorced and lived apart without all that drama.

There is something to be said for the idea that if you are in a loveless marriage, YOU should pour some love into it. People often go from one relationship to the next, as if love is something that can be found externally. The sacrificial nature of love has been nearly forgotten.

This man and many other people like him, decided that their wants and needs trumped those of the spouse and the children. That is an undisputable fact. Advocating the supposed nobility of finding yourself, your identity, and promoting some kind of political agenda in the process, gives no thought to the road kill they leave behind.

It’s easy to advocate for fictional behaviors in a fictional world. Such as a world of Back To The Future movie, where George McFly (100% gay on any gaydar), not interested in girls but desperately wanting to fit into the society, marries too horny Lorraine. Who then gets frustrated with George’s lack of intimate interest in her and takes to drinking and flirting (and possibly straight up adultery) with Biff.

Let’s look at that from another side. I suppose you’re a heterosexual with all the emotional needs of an average heterosexual. From childhood you’ve been finding persons of opposite sex “cute”, “interesting”, and had crushes on them sometimes. Now suppose the societal norms would be that you had to marry a person of your sex, that you have no emotional and sexual attraction to (OK, let’s make it less outrageous for you: you had to marry a person of opposite sex that you had no emotional or sexual attraction to). Will such marriage be in the interests of society? Because a gay man is only able to pour as much love in his marriage to a woman, as you’d be able to pour into a marriage with a person of same as your sex. Which is, not a lot. Such marriage would be toxic for everybody involved, including kids. Getting back to the movie examples, that’s loveless families of some characters in The Breakfast Club.

It could well be. There are the financial benefits, the foundation marriage provides for communities, the security and safety it can create for children. Love is comprised of many things and sexual attraction is only a part of it.

It strikes me as kind of sad that you say a gay man is only able to pour so much love into a woman, “which is not a lot.” Stuff and nonsense, men are capable of having a great love for their daughters, mothers, sisters, that has nothing to do with sex at all.

I’m not missing the point at all. Suppose I were in a same sex relationship and had a family with children. To suddenly discover I’m a heterosexual as if that somehow now entitles me to abandon all my past “mistakes,” as if I were a special snowflake who should be admired for finally coming around, is absolutely appalling and immoral.

Whoever I was in this imaginary relationship with, would be entitled to feel betrayed, resentful, and furious. Odds are pretty good I would not treat this person or the children like bumps in my path, road kill on my quest to self awareness, because that would simply be self absorbed and wrong.

A marriage is a contract, a covenant. When you add children to the equation, you are “stuck,” if stuck means now having to put others people’s needs before your own.

” I’m opposed to gay marriage, for multiple reasons, one being the impact it has on women and children as this particular ex wife has explained”

But how is this case is different from a case where the divorced man would just have married another woman? How did the man’s marriage to another man made it worse?

And I’m curious what are your reasons for the opposition to the civil contract of marriage between persons of the same sex. Other than based on religion, of course, because religious reasons should not affect civil law, since that would be de-facto “establishing a religion” which is prohibited by the First Amendment.